re: #190 Rightwingconspirator

What is the difference in their authority? If this guy is not good why did Obama pick him to serve at all? It’s quite possible a confirmed director would have done the same. Sorry I just do not see shifting blame for F&F onto the GOP much at all. Blame Issa for not objecting, (best case for blaming the GOP in part right there not the appointment/confirmation thing) blame them for the exaggerated outrage. That much I agree with in full.

Nobody wants this position because of the confirmation process. The NRA is against the agency. Are you seriously saying that a trained ATF agent with years of experience might not be a better fit?

Congress changed the law in 2006 to require that directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives receive Senate confirmation. Since then, there has been no confirmed director. All have been acting. During the George W. Bush administration, ATF’s acting director was a commuter: Michael Sullivan was trying to run the agency, while also serving as the U.S. attorney in Boston.

The Obama White House did not nominate a director, Andrew Traver, until 23 months into the administration. Officials say a major problem was finding someone who would take the job. Several people, who were approached, said they did not want to get caught up in a confirmation process that would be long and tortured, these officials say. Others said even if they could get confirmed, they thought being ATF director would be a career-killer, given that the agency’s powers are constantly in danger of being reduced in the face of aggressive lobbying by the National Rifle Association, administration officials say.

Traver, a career agent and chief of the agency’s Chicago office, was quickly opposed by the NRA, dooming his prospects for confirmation.

So yes, there is some blame for the GOP who keep putting holds on every single nominee.